So it's a felony to possess it, and it's a felony to not tell law enforcement that you possess it. hmm. I think I'll risk possession w/o disclosure.

HenryFnord: it's a felony to not tell law enforcement that you possess it

Doesn't that violate the fifth amendment?

but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized

That guy's almost as sick as the child rapist.

GBI says it's a felony to have child porn unless you share it with them.

ZAZ: GBI says it's a felony to have child porn unless you share it with them.

Superior headline. Would +1

Why do I get the feeling that /b/ had something to do with this.

/for teh lulz.

It's a USB line, I'll show you later.

"But if they keep the video on their computer, or share it with anyone, Brown and Milka said it's likely going to be there permanently, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted."

lol.

Understanding of computers fail.

More along the lines of "it's possible that it could be recovered off of the disk, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted, with the application of several thousand $ worth of computer forensic techniques and a lot of time."

Interesting that the simple act of receiving the e-mail could count as possessing the file even if you don't open the e-mail.

Can you even be prosecuted for being sent unsolicited illegal material if you dispose of said illegal material?

It might be a felony to discuss it.

"Hello, 911?? ZOMG I HAS TEH CHILD PR0NZ!!!1!"

Inflatable Rhetoric: It might be a felony to discuss it.

brb, someone at the door.

Pinko_Commie:
Can you even be prosecuted for being sent unsolicited illegal material if you dispose of said illegal material?

funny story about that (new window)

FTFA
but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized. That is a crime, yes.

I always thought the child was victimized when the video was made, not when people watched it. Of course you prosecute those who watch such things, so it discourages such things being made, but it's not as if the child feels pain every time someone watches the video. It's not their voodoo doll.

"but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."

But if they keep the video on their computer, or share it with anyone, Brown and Milka said it's likely going to be there permanently, even if the computer disk is wiped clean and re-formatted.

Really? You guys sure about that?

I really can't wait to hear from the Linux users about how they can totally erase their hard drives and no cop will ever catch them.

"but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

The only reason it's illegal is to satisfy all the handwringing "Think of the children" types in power, and the sheeple that vote for them.

FTA:

"Anyone who receives the e-mail should, according to Brown and Milka, leave it unopened on the computer and call the GBI immediately. That way, agents may be able to trace where it came from, and will then take it off of the computer so there is no trace of it. arrest you for a picture of a 17 year old wearing a bathing suit in your browser cache."

FTFT

"The FBI put out a wanted poster of the man -- click here to see it on fbi.gov. "

YEAH RIGHT! Like Im falling for that mr. article. Youre just trying to get ME to look at the child pr0nz too!

notoverit: FTA:

"Anyone who receives the e-mail should, according to Brown and Milka, leave it unopened on the computer and call the GBI immediately. That way, agents may be able to trace where it came from, and will then take it off of the computer so there is no trace of it. arrest you for a picture of a 17 year old wearing a bathing suit in your browser cache."

FTFT

That too.

Of course, i'm sure they won't do anything else. They will only take that one email, they couldn't possibly look through any other images on your hard drive or in your email. . .

The FBI put out a wanted poster of the man -- click here to see it on fbi.gov.

"These are images [on the wanted poster] that came directly from the video which has been circulating," Brown said.

Then the FBI agent laughed and said "muhaha if you view that poster you're in possession of child porn!!1! I did it for the lulz"

18 posts in, and no pedobear...
/ashamed

adamgreeney: notoverit: FTA:

"Anyone who receives the e-mail should, according to Brown and Milka, leave it unopened on the computer and call the GBI immediately. That way, agents may be able to trace where it came from, and will then take it off of the computer so there is no trace of it. arrest you for a picture of a 17 year old wearing a bathing suit in your browser cache."

FTFT

That too.

Of course, i'm sure they won't do anything else. They will only take that one email, they couldn't possibly look through any other images on your hard drive or in your email. . .

You can trust me. I'm from the government.

deevo: Pinko_Commie:
Can you even be prosecuted for being sent unsolicited illegal material if you dispose of said illegal material?

funny story about that (new window)

Nice one. Shame the link at the bottom doesn't work. I would have been interested to read that.

Dammit, grandma, stop sending me child porn.

SkittlesAreYum: FTFA
but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized. That is a crime, yes.

I always thought the child was victimized when the video was made, not when people watched it. Of course you prosecute those who watch such things, so it discourages such things being made, but it's not as if the child feels pain every time someone watches the video. It's not their voodoo doll.

So, if they punish the guy who made the video, then it's OK to watch? Can you watch it over and over?

but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized

Uh, no. Not really. WTF is this shiat?

I think whoever made the video should be strung up, and whoever enjoys watching such a thing should put themselves out of their misery straight away, but this statement is just farking ridiculous.

wh0mprat: SkittlesAreYum: FTFA
but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized. That is a crime, yes.

I always thought the child was victimized when the video was made, not when people watched it. Of course you prosecute those who watch such things, so it discourages such things being made, but it's not as if the child feels pain every time someone watches the video. It's not their voodoo doll.

So, if they punish the guy who made the video, then it's OK to watch? Can you watch it over and over?

Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

HenryFnord
So it's a felony to possess it, and it's a felony to not tell law enforcement that you possess it. hmm. I think I'll risk possession w/o disclosure.

Years ago in high school (1995), I was in this after-school class called "Introduction to Law Enforcement". This was back in the old AOL days when all you had to do was enter into a chat room, and people would just start e-mailing you pron, and USENET was pretty lenient as well. We discussed legal topics and how cops enforce them. The subject of child porn came up.

His off-the-record-advice plain and simple was that unless you were like a contractor repairing a PC with a company to back you up, if you ever run across it just delete it and forget you ever saw it. If you report it, you'd probably be investigated too, and the hassle just wasn't worth it. At that time, authorities were well aware of the growing epidemic, and were still hammering out game-plans on how to prosecute people. But all the while were still investigating individuals and the trading rings to try and find the sources of the material.

Just like other habitual offenders: you might not catch them right now, but you will soon enough once they break the law again. So just step back, and let the authorities do their jobs.

mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

So if you randomly got an email with this video attached and you watched it you'd be creating a demand for activity that victimizes children? Please explain.

Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

I think the market has already been created. Don't you?

Pinko_Commie: Interesting that the simple act of receiving the e-mail could count as possessing the file even if you don't open the e-mail.

The new trend of kiddie pornographers: send copies of all their stuff to the state legislatures email addresses, thus promptly getting them all arrested.
Brilliant!

well, here's a good article (new window) about a honeypot. Because "4yo_suck.rar" is such an obvious and damning name.

SkittlesAreYum: Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

I think you're taking a very concrete view of victimization.

If there were a video of YOU getting ass-raped floating around on the internets, would you be OK with the idea that thousands of mastubating perverts are wathing it every day? Enjoying your humiiation and victimzation? What if it happened when you were a kid and it's been out there for years? Woudln't you want it GONE? Or would you be OK with it? What if it were your kid? Would you mind if people watched it? After all, they're not vicimizing your kid.

That's what they mean by vicitimized. Knowing that people are watching it and jerking it to a video of the worst time of their lives is victimization.

But you're tougher than that. You wouldn't mind.

Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.
A market implies that you're buying. I'm against paying people to commit crimes, if that's what you mean. People who get emailed it, or people who pirate(does such a thing happen?) cp are innocent though.

ReverendJasen: Pinko_Commie: Interesting that the simple act of receiving the e-mail could count as possessing the file even if you don't open the e-mail.

The new trend of kiddie pornographers: send copies of all their stuff to the state legislatures email addresses, thus promptly getting them all arrested.
Brilliant!

And, how are law enforcement people exempt from the laws about possession? How can we know they only view them "for official reasons?"

Wow, a lot of people feeding the trolls in here.

notoverit: So if you randomly got an email with this video attached and you watched it you'd be creating a demand for activity that victimizes children? Please explain.

No, but if you actively seek it, you are creating a demand.

Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

download music: you're ruining the industry
download child porn: you're creating a market

XFD, corporate America

unfortunately, most child pornography (created by Westerners) is simply a record of molestation. Sure, there are prostitution rings in Thailand and orphanages in Russia, but I'm not sure if there's an actual solution to absolutely amoral people who will do anything to other human beings for money, so I don't know if we can pinpoint it as a child pornography problem.

Ant: You're creating a market for such stuff.

The people who are actively seeking it out and (I'm guessing) paying for it are, yes.

Joe Shmoe who accidentally runs across it is not, even if he watches it before moving on. I think that's what they're getting at here. Er.. I hope so at least.

Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

It's going to be out there anyways, unless you're specifically requesting it the file already exists, independent of you.

mister aj: A market implies that you're buying.

Payment could be in the form of notoriety.

wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

notoverit: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

So if you randomly got an email with this video attached and you watched it you'd be creating a demand for activity that victimizes children? Please explain.

If you leave a loophole like that, everyone will use it. Besides, you can be charged with receiving stolen property even if you didn't know it was stolen.

wh0mprat: SkittlesAreYum: Nope. But the child is not being victimized when it's watched. Do they know when someone watches the video? Because, if not, it's hard for them to be victimized at that point.

I think you're taking a very concrete view of victimization.

If there were a video of YOU getting ass-raped floating around on the internets, would you be OK with the idea that thousands of mastubating perverts are wathing it every day? Enjoying your humiiation and victimzation? What if it happened when you were a kid and it's been out there for years? Woudln't you want it GONE? Or would you be OK with it? What if it were your kid? Would you mind if people watched it? After all, they're not vicimizing your kid.

That's what they mean by vicitimized. Knowing that people are watching it and jerking it to a video of the worst time of their lives is victimization.

But you're tougher than that. You wouldn't mind.

Wanting it gone and wanting everyone that watches it put in prison for 5 years or more are two completely different things.

And just because other people watch the worst time of your life does not mean you can initiate a scorched earth policy of imprisoning hundreds/thousands of people. There are plenty of blooper videos available as well as videos of violent crime that somehow don't receive the same "revictimization" theory.

The re-vicitimization theory was invented to justify the increasingly harsh CP possession laws after the actual market for such filth was nearly eliminated. You just happen to buy into the BS.

Interesting that the simple act of receiving the e-mail could count as possessing the file even if you don't open the e-mail.

I think they're bluffing. I don't believe that simply receiving an massively-forwarded email would make a strong case.

The Supreme Court case Jacobson v. US involved a man who was repeatedly sent offers for child porn until he finally gave in and ordered something. The offers came from the government. The court said that was entrapment -- he knowingly ordered something illegal but the government applied too much pressure to get him to do it. That is what law enforcement did before the net let officers hang out in chat rooms and pretend to be 14 year old girls.

Inflatable Rhetoric: Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

I think the market has already been created. Don't you?

The 'market' is not an amorphous blob out on the internets. It's real people clicking on links and consuming the material. Don't add to it.

DRC500free: wh0mprat: mister aj: "but unfortunately every time somebody views that video, that child is being re-victimized."
BS. CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

So you think it's OK to provide a demand for activity that victimizes children and, is by your definition, 'evil'.

Please.

You think it's okay to watch a news broadcast of the 9/11 attacks?

footage of 9/11 wasn't designed to titillate. it wamy do that, but that's not it's intent. Child porn, by definition, does.

wh0mprat: Inflatable Rhetoric: Ant: mister aj: CP is a victimless crime. Abusing children is evil, but simply possessing a pattern of bits is not.

You're creating a market for such stuff.

I think the market has already been created. Don't you?

The 'market' is not an amorphous blob out on the internets. It's real people clicking on links and consuming the material. Don't add to it.

Ok, I won't. Problem solved. Next?